Madras High Court
R.Manimegalai vs The District Collector /Chairman on 14 February, 2019
1
B E F O R E T H E MADU R AI B E N C H O F MADRA S HIGH C O U RT
DAT E D : 1 0 . 0 3 . 2 0 2 0
C O R AM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. J U S T I C E C . V. K A RT HI K E YA N
Writ P e tition (MD). N o s . 5 0 6 8 , 5 0 7 3 , 5 0 7 4 , 5 0 7 5 , 5 0 7 7 , 5 0 7 8
and 5 0 8 1 of 2 0 2 0
and
W.M. P.(MD). N o s . 4 3 9 8 , 4 4 0 0 , 4 4 0 2 , 4 4 0 6 t o 4 4 2 0 , 4 4 2 2 , 4 4 2 3
and 4 4 2 4 of 2 0 2 0
Writ P e ti ti on (MD). N o. 5 0 6 8 o f 2 0 2 0
R.Manimegalai ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector /Chairman,
District Rural Development Agency,
Madurai District.
2.The Additional Collector / Project Director,
Collectorate,
Madurai – 20.
3.The Block Development Officer / Commissioner,
Madurai East Panchayat Union,
Race Course Road,
Madurai.
4.The State of Tamilnadu,
through Additional Chief Secretary,
Rural Development & Panchayatraj Department,
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
5.The Director of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009. ... Respondents
P r a y e r : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the
proceedings of the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.261/2020/D5, dated
14.02.2019 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For R1, R2, R4 and R5 : Mr.C.M.Marichelliah Prabhu
Additional Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.K.Mu.Muthu
Additional Government Pleader
C O MMO N O R DE R
The petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.5068 of 2020, R.Manimegalai, Chairperson of Madurai East Panchayat Union, has filed the writ petition, in the nature of Certiorari seeking the records of the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.261/2020/D5, dated 14.02.2019, on the file of the first respondent viz., the District Collector / Chairman of the District Rural Development http://www.judis.nic.in 3 Agency, Madurai District and to set aside the same.
2. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that six other writ petitions of similar nature have been filed by various Chairpersons of the elected Panchayat, questioning the very same order of the District Collector / Chairman, DRDA, dated 14.02.2019.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length. Orders are passed in the main writ petitions.
4. I am really surprised at the attitude of an elected Panchayat Chairperson, who questions the order of the District Collector, since the nature of the order is primarily to call for tenders to clean tanks, to de-silt Ooranies and ponds, so that flowing water can be ensured for the benefit of the general public. A Panchayat Chairperson is expected to discharge public duty and has a responsibility to serve the areas that come within the Panchayat. The present writ petitions are a direct attempt to scuttle and put to an end, a scheme initiated by the District Collector for the welfare of the people.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4
5. In the present writ petition, in the affidavit, the writ petitioner has assailed the order of the District Collector on various grounds. She claims exclusive right of the Panchayat to frame schemes, based on resolutions passed by the Panchayat. She further claims the right of the Panchayat to utilise funds allotted to the Panchayat, in the manner as resolved by the Panchayat.
6. Among various grounds raised, it had been stated that by this attempt, the District Collector / Chairman, DRDA, Madurai District, has reduced the Panchayat Councils as mere puppets, without any duty to discharge in respect of Kudimaramathu Scheme, I am unable to comprehend as to how that can be perceived as the object of the impugned order. The order had been issued by the Collector, Madurai and in the proceedings, reference had been drawn to an earlier Government Order in G.O.(Ms.)No. 96 of the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (CGS.1) Department, dated 26.07.2019. That Government Order had been passed, after examining the proposal of the Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj to accept the proposal to take up de-silting and deepening of 5000 minor irrigation http://www.judis.nic.in 5 tanks through Panchayat Unions, 25,000/- ponds and Ooranies through Village Panchayats using machineries at an estimated cost of Rs.500 crores from the State funds by adopting the Pubic Works Department rates for the year 2019 - 2020. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proposal and the sanctioning of de-silting and deepening of the minor irrigation tanks through Panchayat Unions also forms the basis of the order now impugned in these writ petitions.
7. In the impugned order, the District Collector, had stated that there are several minor irrigation tanks / ponds / Ooranies, which have to be restored. Restoration of the same is for public good, whether it is done by the Panchayats or by the Government. It is for public good. It is also seen that a list of ponds / Ooranies had been given in the impugned order. The names of the Blocks in Madurai East has been given and it is seen that there are as many as 12 villages which have been identified, where ponds / Ooranies will have to be de-silted and deepened. Insofar as the Madurai West is concerned, there are 9 villages, where similar work is required to be done. In Tirupparankundram, there are as many as 16 villages, in Melur, there are 14 villages, in Kottampatti, there are 30 villages, in Vadipattti, there http://www.judis.nic.in 6 are 11 villages, in Alanganallur, there are 10 villages, in Chellampatti, there are 17 villages, in Sedapatti, there are 26 villages, in Tirumangalam, there are 24 villages, in T.Kallupatti, there are 25 villages and finally in Kallikudi, there are 26 villages. In all in 230 villages in Madurai District, deepening and strengthening of the Ooranies / tanks / ponds situated in the said villages are required. This is a work necessary and essential for every common man. In a normal situation, Village Panchayat Chairpersons, who have been elected to do public good, would be expected to join hands with the Government in execution of such work and not to put a spoke in the wheel to obstruct such work. This appears to be the object of the present petitioners. This cannot be permitted. This Court prohibits the same.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn reference to the financial arrangement to be made towards such deepening and de-silting of ponds and Ooranies. It is stated in the impugned order that for all the 230 villages, wherein ponds / Ooranies / tanks, have to be de-silted, a total amount of Rs.1282.74 Lakhs is required. The grievance of the present petitioner is, as explicitly stated by the learned counsel, not with respect to the object of the work, but, with respect to the source of funds. However, http://www.judis.nic.in 7 by questioning the source of funds, indirectly, the object will be obstructed and stopped. Thus, there is a touch of m al e fid e in the filing of the writ petition.
9. The source of the funds, in the impugned order, is from the State Financial Commission Grants, which are allotted to Panchayats. Contrasting this, with G.O.(Ms.)No.96, which had been referred earlier, the learned counsel points out that it had been mentioned that the deepening and de- silting of tanks / Ooranies / ponds would be from the funds allotted by the State. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that though in G.O.(Ms.)No.96, it had been very specifically stated that the works of de-silting and deepening of tanks are to be done through Panchayat Unions, they should be executed by utilising the State Funds. Directing the execution of such work through the State Financial Commission Grant, it is contended, is wholly unjust and would only erode and corrode the existing funds of the Panchayat and encroach on the liberty given to the Panchayats to expend such funds, which have been allotted to the Panchayat, for execution of objects for which resolutions can be passed. It is stated that the impugned order is a direct encroachment on the power http://www.judis.nic.in 8 of the Panchayats and also a direct encroachment on the financial status of the Panchayats and also a direct encroachment on the decisions to be taken by the Panchayat, which decisions will naturally be taken for good cause.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners also drew the attention of this Court to the Constitution, particularly, Article 243, which relates to Panchayats. It had been stated that sufficient recognition should be given by the State Government, recognising the role of the Panchayat and hence there cannot be any order passed in the nature of the order now impugned in the present writ petitions, encroaching into the powers of the Panchayat not only, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, directly interfering with the decision making capacity of the Panchayats, but also directly interfering with the funds available with the Panchayats.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioners further drew the attention of this Court to Article 243 G of the Constitution of India, which deals with the powers, authority and responsibilities of Panchayats, wherein, it had been stated that the Panchayat has the power to prepare plans for http://www.judis.nic.in 9 economic development and for social justice and also to implement such Schemes, which directly empower and brings about social justice.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioners therefore stated that by directing the Panchayats to execute works of de-silting of tanks and Ooranies by utilising the State Financial Commission Grants, the impugned order directly interfered with the independent functioning of the Panchayats.
14. Attention was also drawn to the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994, and in particular, to the very Preamble of the said Act itself. It has been stated that the Act had been passed with the noble object of establishing a three tier Panchayat Raj system in the State of Tamil Nadu by elected bodies at the Village. Intermediate and in the District level and the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994, has been introduced by the Legislature in consonance with the objects of the Constitution relating to Panchayats, which require greater participation of the people in governance. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there has been a direct intrusion not only on the objects of the Constitution, but, to the functioning of the Panchayats http://www.judis.nic.in 10 themselves. It is therefore stated that the grievance expressed by the writ petitioners are genuine and have to be examined by this Court.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner also drew attention of this Court to Section 83 of the said Act, by which, an Executive Authority of a Village Panchayat is appointed by the Government, by proper Notification and such Executive Authority has to perform duties relating to executing the resolutions of the Village Panchayat. It had been stated that deepening of tanks / Ooranies can also be done by the Village Panchayats, if a resolution is passed and can be executed through the Executive Authority.
16. The learned counsel also relied on Section 112 of the said Act, wherein a duty had been caused on the Panchayat Union Council to provide for certain matters, in particular excavation, renovation and maintenance of tanks, the construction of works for the supply of water for drinking, washing and bathing purposes etc., as provided in Section 112 (aa) of the said Act.
http://www.judis.nic.in 11
17. After pointing out all these provisions, the learned counsel stated that directing the Panchayat to execute the works through the State Financial Commission Grants, is an interference into the budget and would eat away the funds already granted, which funds can be used for any other purpose, since deepening of the tanks / Ooranies can be done with the State Funds and not necessarily from the State Financial Commission Grants.
18. The learned counsel further pointed out, under the impugned order, the Additional Collector / Project Director of Madurai, had been appointed as the Tender Inviting Authority, with power to invite bids from prospective tenderers for the said work of de-silting and deepening of Ooranies, tanks and ponds and the learned counsel stated that the appointment of such Additional Collector / Project Director, is once again a direct interference into the working of the Panchayat.
19. It is seen that the said Officer had actually invited tenders, which invitation has been filed along with the writ petitions and according to which, tenders were invited from 04.03.2020 and they would be opened on 11.03.2020 at 04.00 p.m. http://www.judis.nic.in 12
20. After hearing the learned counsel for the writ petitioner for quite some time and having granted opportunity of advancing arguments at length, after considering the materials on record, I am unable to convince myself to accede to the contentions raised.
21. The impugned order has been passed by the District Collector to execute restoration, renovation, deepening and de-silting of Ooranies, ponds and tanks in as many as 230 works, and the total cost had been estimated as Rs.1282.74 Lakhs. It had been stated that this amount can be utilised from the State Financial Commission Grants and sanction had been granted for utilising such Government amount. It is also been seen that the Village Panchayats were directed to include the said amount in their budgets and that the consent of the Grama Saba should also be obtained. It had been finally stated in the impugned order that to execute the works, an E-Tender would be called for and the Tender Inviting Authority had been stated to be the Additional Collector / the Project Director of Madurai. http://www.judis.nic.in 13
22. With respect to the argument that by the impugned order, the right of the Panchayats to pass resolutions for execution of projects have been interfered with it has to be stated that it is an argument, which cannot stand scrutiny. The District Collector had passed the impugned order, directing necessary works to be executed in specific tanks, in specific Ooranies and in specific ponds. The District Collector had taken up the responsibility of ensuing that these tanks/ooranies/ponds in the named villages are de-silted and are deepened. The objects cannot be questioned. There is no infringement on the rights of the Panchayat. A decision had been taken for public good and welfare, and it would be sanguine on the part of the Panchayats to join hands in this welfare object. They can pass resolutions to second the objects, but taking efforts to scuttle the objects cannot be appreciated. The learned counsel for the petitioners admitted that the Village Panchayats also approve the works stated in the impugned order.
23. The second line of challenge to the impugned order is with respect to the source of funds, for execution of the works. Drawing attention to G.O.(Ms.).No.96, wherein it had been stated that deepening of http://www.judis.nic.in 14 Ooranies and ponds should be done through the State Funds and contrasting that with the statement in the present impugned order wherein it has been stated that such work should be carried out through the State Financial Commission Grants, learned counsel stated that the State Government could have by, the impugned order, executed such works, utilising State Funds, rather than eating into the State Financial Commission Grants, which are specifically allotted to the Village Panchayats.
24. I hold that State Financial Commission Grants are allotted to the Vllage Panchayats also for deepening of village tanks, Ooranies and ponds. If the Collector had taken a decision that the said funds are to be utilised for deepening of particular tanks situated within the Panchayat area, then the Panchayat Union cannot raise their objections for the same. If the Panchayats are aggrieved that this utilisation would erode their financial strength, then individual Panchayats can approach the Collector / Chairman, DRDA and seek readjustment of utilisation of funds. But, attempting to scuttle the entire project cannot be appreciated. http://www.judis.nic.in 15
25. I find no grounds to justify raising such objections. Funds are allotted to the Panchayat only to carry out works for public good. Deepening of tanks and Ooranies are works for public good. Utilising of funds allotted in the State Financial Commission Grants cannot be faulted. The amounts involved are huge. A segregation of expense for each tank, for each Oorany, for each pond and the funds estimated had been specifically mentioned. The petitioners herein have not questioned that estimate. They have not questioned whether these tanks and these Ooranies require de- silting and deepening. These issues have not been challenged or questioned by the petitioners. If the funds are utilised for a good purpose, then it is to be expected that the Village Panchayats would join hands with the Collector/ Chairman, DRDA in executing the works.
26. It is seen that by the impugned order, 230 villages have been identified in 13 Blocks. Naturally, it would only be in the interest of all concerned, that a Centralised agency invites tenders and processes the same. If this is decentralised then it would lead to the fixation of different standards by each Panchayat. That cannot be permitted. A Centralised Agency can examine the bids of all the tenderers, examine the capabilities http://www.judis.nic.in 16 and then award the same. I do not find any infirmity in the procedure adopted.
27. Interference of Courts in policy decisions should be avoided unless there is perversity writ large on the face of such policy decisions. The impugned order cannot be categorised as such.
28. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The Court cannot be used to prevent a laudable object being implemented and to prevent public good from being discharged. I am unable to agree with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. These Writ Petitions are dismissed in the admission stage itself. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
1 0.0 3.2 0 2 0 N o t e : Issue order copy on 11.03.2020.
akv To
1.The District Collector /Chairman, District Rural Development Agency, Madurai District.
http://www.judis.nic.in 17
2.The Additional Collector / Project Director, Collectorate, Madurai – 20.
3.The Block Development Officer / Commissioner, Madurai East Panchayat Union, Race Course Road, Madurai.
4.The State of Tamilnadu, through Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayatraj Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
5.The Director of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
http://www.judis.nic.in 18 C . V. K A RT HI K E YA N , J.
akv Writ P e tition (MD). N o s . 5 0 6 8 , 5 0 7 3 , 5 0 7 4 , 5 0 7 5 , 5 0 7 7 , 5 0 7 8 and 5 0 8 1 of 2 0 2 0 1 0. 0 3. 2 0 2 0 http://www.judis.nic.in